Another Vet Earns Agent Orange Recognition - Outside Vietnam!

Thanks to Paul Sutton who forwarded a Blue Water Navy discovery, we now have another example of the VA awarding service connection for Agent Orange-presumptive illness to a veteran who came into contact with the toxin outside Vietnam...in this case, the Philippines. 

The decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals is great news to us...it gives precedence which clearly shows our road to getting our own cases decided correctly. In his case, he patrolled the fence line of an air base which had Agent Orange freighted through the base. In our case, we have "boots on the airplane" aboard C-123K aircraft which the Air Force itself certified as "heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous" and which led to our exposure.


Many of us have claims before the VA now, and we cannot count on every Rating Officer (RO) knowing of this decision regarding Agent Orange exposure outside Vietnam, so it might be beneficial to your case to submit a copy of the decision as additional evidence.


Here is the decision, so very vital to us. It certainly shows how differently the BVA treats veterans represented by competent attorneys!
---------------------

Citation Nr: 1117698  

Decision Date: 05/09/11    Archive Date: 05/17/11 

DOCKET NO.  09-19 872 )   DATE 

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. 

Petersburg, Florida 

THE ISSUES 

1.  Whether there is new and material evidence to reopen a claim for 

service connection for Type II Diabetes Mellitus, including as due to 

herbicide exposure. 

2.  Entitlement to service connection for Type II Diabetes Mellitus, 

including as due to herbicide exposure. 

3.  Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the 

upper extremities, including as secondary to the Type II Diabetes 

Mellitus. 

4.  Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the 

lower extremities, including as secondary to the Type II Diabetes 

Mellitus. 

5.  Entitlement to service connection for a kidney order, including as 

secondary to the Type II Diabetes Mellitus. 

6.  Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, including as 

secondary to the Type II Diabetes Mellitus. 

7.  Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder, including as 

secondary to the Type II Diabetes Mellitus. 

8.  Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, 

including as secondary to the Type II Diabetes Mellitus. 

9.  Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disorder, 

including as secondary to the Type II Diabetes Mellitus. 

10.  Entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder, including as 

due to herbicide exposure. 

REPRESENTATION 

Appellant represented by: Matthew D. Hill, Attorney 

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL 

The Veteran 

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD 

Rochelle E. Richardson, Associate Counsel 

    INTRODUCTION 

The Veteran had active military service from December 1968 to October 

1971. 

This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is from an April 

2008 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional 

Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. 

In that April 2008 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran's petitions 

to reopen his previously denied, unappealed, claims for service 

connection for Type II Diabetes Mellitus and residuals of a head injury - 

concluding there was not new and material evidence concerning these 

claims.  However, the RO reopened his previously denied, unappealed, 

claim for service connection for a left knee disorder, though continued 

to deny this claim on its underlying merits.  The RO also denied his 

claims for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the upper and 

lower extremities, a kidney condition, high blood pressure, a heart 

condition, a bilateral foot condition, a bilateral eye condition, facial 

skin cancer, a lung condition, depression, and venereal disease.  As 

well, the RO denied his claim for permanent and total disability and 

eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance. 

In his July 2008 notice of disagreement (NOD) with that decision, the 

Veteran contested the RO's denials of his claims for Type II Diabetes 

Mellitus, peripheral neuropathy of his upper and lower extremities, a 

kidney condition, high blood pressure, a heart condition, a bilateral 

foot condition, a bilateral eye condition, facial skin cancer, a lung 

condition, depression, the head injury, and a left knee condition.  In 

May 2009, the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC) concerning these 

claims and, in response, he submitted a timely substantive appeal (VA 

Form 9), perfecting his appeal of these claims to the Board.  38 C.F.R. § 

20.200 (2010).